In order for the 88 percent claim to be even remotely close to the
truth, the words “directly” and “life-changing” have to mean something
other than “directly” and “life-changing.” For example, the Clinton
Foundation spent nearly $8.5 million–10 percent of all 2013
expenditures–on travel. Do plane tickets and hotel accommodations
directly change lives? Nearly $4.8 million–5.6 percent of all
expenditures–was spent on office supplies. Are ink cartridges and
staplers “life-changing” commodities?

Those two categories alone comprise over 15 percent of all Clinton
Foundation expenses in 2013, and we haven’t even examined other spending
categories like employee fringe benefits ($3.7 million), IT costs ($2.1
million), rent ($4 million) or conferences and conventions ($9.2
million). Yet, the tax-exempt organization claimed in its tweet that no
more than 12 percent of its expenditures went to these overhead
expenses.

How can both claims be true? Easy: they’re not. The claim from the
Clinton Foundation that 88 percent of all expenditures go directly to
life-changing work is demonstrably false. Office chairs do not directly
save lives. The internet connection for the group’s headquarters does
not directly change lives.

But what if those employees and those IT costs and those travel
expenses indirectly save lives, you might ask. Sure, it’s overhead, but
what if it’s overhead in the service of a larger mission? Fair question.
Even using the broadest definition of “program expenses” possible,
however, the 88 percent claim is still false. How do we know? Because the IRS 990 forms submitted by the Clinton Foundation
include a specific and detailed accounting of these programmatic
expenses. And even using extremely broad definitions–definitions that
allow office supply, rent, travel, and IT costs to be counted as
programmatic costs–the Clinton Foundation fails its own test.

According to 2013 tax forms filed by the Clinton Foundation,
a mere 80 percent of the organization’s expenditures were characterized
as functional programmatic expenses. That’s a far cry from the 88
percent claimed by the organization just last week.

If you take a narrower, and more realistic, view of the tax-exempt
group’s expenditures by excluding obvious overhead expenses and focusing
on direct grants to charities and governments, the numbers look much
worse. In 2013, for example, only 10 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s
expenditures were for direct charitable grants. The amount it spent on
charitable grants–$8.8 million–was dwarfed by the $17.2 million it
cumulatively spent on travel, rent, and office supplies. Between 2011
and 2013, the organization spent only 9.9 percent of the $252 million it
collected on direct charitable grants.

While some may claim that the Clinton Foundation does its charity by itself,
rather than outsourcing to other organizations in the form of grants,
there appears to be little evidence of that activity in 2013. In 2008,
for example, the Clinton Foundation spent nearly $100 million
purchasing and distributing medicine and working with its care partners.
In 2009, the organization spent $126 million on pharmaceutical and care partner expenses. By 2011,
those activities were virtually non-existent. The group spent nothing
on pharmaceutical expenses and only $1.2 million on care partner
expenses. In 2012 and 2013,
the Clinton Foundation spent $0. In just a few short years, the
Clinton’s primary philanthropic project transitioned from a massive
player in global pharmaceutical distribution to a bloated travel agency
and conference organizing business that just happened to be tax-exempt.

The Clinton Foundation announced last week that it would be refiling its tax returns for the last five years
because it had improperly failed to disclose millions of dollars in
donations from foreign sources while Hillary Clinton was serving as
Secretary of State.

CHARITY NAVIGATOR DOES NOT EVEN RATE THE FOUNDATION..Too Crooked!!Click Here : https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=311580204The Clinton Foundation’s
finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity
watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last
month.The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in
grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel,
and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family
friends.On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation
claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7
million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences,
conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5
million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do
enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on
its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the
organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on
hand.Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more
than 2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals
around the world.But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that
nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission.Charity Navigator,
which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation
because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.”Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns
potential donors about investing in problematic charities. The 23
charities on the list include the Rev. Al Sharpton’s troubled National Action Network, which is cited for failing to pay payroll taxes for several years.Other nonprofit experts are asking hard questions about the Clinton
Foundation’s tax filings in the wake of recent reports that the Clintons
traded influence for donations.“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for
the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight
Foundation, a government watchdog group where progressive Democrat and
Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout was once an organizing director.In July 2013, Eric Braverman, a friend of Chelsea Clinton
from when they both worked at McKinsey & Co., took over as CEO of
the Clinton Foundation. He took home nearly $275,000 in salary, benefits
and a housing allowance from the nonprofit for just five months’ work
in 2013, tax filings show. Less than a year later, his salary increased
to $395,000, according to a report in Politico.Braverman abruptly left the foundation earlier this year, after a
falling-out with the old Clinton guard over reforms he wanted to impose
at the charity, Politico reported. Last month, Donna Shalala, a former
secretary of health and human services under President Clinton, was hired to replace Braverman.Nine other executives received salaries over $100,000 in 2013, tax filings show.The nonprofit came under fire last week following reports that Hillary Clinton,
while she was secretary of state, signed off on a deal that allowed a
Russian government enterprise to control one-fifth of all uranium
producing capacity in the United States. Rosatom, the Russian company,
acquired a Canadian firm controlled by Frank Giustra, a friend of Bill
Clinton’s and member of the foundation board, who has pledged over $130
million to the Clinton family charity.The group also failed to disclose millions of dollars it received in
foreign donations from 2010 to 2012 and is hurriedly refiling five
years’ worth of tax returns after reporters raised questions about the
discrepancies in its filings last week.

The Clinton Foundation Enriched Itself By Ripping Off Haiti After 2010 Earthquake

It filtered money through Haiti and back to itself.

In January 2015 a group of Haitians surrounded the New York offices
of the Clinton Foundation. They chanted slogans, accusing Bill and
Hillary Clinton of having robbed them of “billions of dollars.” Two
months later, the Haitians were at it again, accusing the Clintons of
duplicity, malfeasance, and theft. And in May 2015, they were back, this
time outside New York’s Cipriani, where Bill Clinton received an award
and collected a $500,000 check for his foundation. “Clinton, where’s the
money?” the Haitian signs read. “In whose pockets?” Said Dhoud Andre of
the Commission Against Dictatorship, “We are telling the world of the
crimes that Bill and Hillary Clinton are responsible for in Haiti.”

Haitians like Andre may sound a bit strident, but he and the protesters
had good reason to be disgruntled. They had suffered a heavy blow from
Mother Nature, and now it appeared that they were being battered again —
this time by the Clintons. Their story goes back to 2010, when a
massive 7.0 earthquake devastated the island, killing more than 200,000
people, leveling 100,000 homes, and leaving 1.5 million people
destitute.

The devastating effect of the earthquake on a very poor nation provoked
worldwide concern and inspired an outpouring of aid money intended to
rebuild Haiti. Countries around the world, as well as private and
philanthropic groups such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army,
provided some $10.5 billion in aid, with $3.9 billion of it coming from
the United States.
Haitians such as Andre, however, noticed that very little of this aid
money actually got to poor people in Haiti. Some projects championed by
the Clintons, such as the building of industrial parks and posh hotels,
cost a great deal of money and offered scarce benefits to the truly
needy. Port-au-Prince was supposed to be rebuilt; it was never rebuilt.
Projects aimed at creating jobs proved to be bitter disappointments.
Haitian unemployment remained high, largely undented by the funds that
were supposed to pour into the country. Famine and illness continued to
devastate the island nation.
The Haitians were initially sympathetic to the Clintons. One may say
they believed in the message of “hope and change.” With his customary
overstatement, Bill told the media, “Wouldn’t it be great if they become
the first wireless nation in the world? They could, I’m telling you,
they really could.”
I don’t blame the Haitians for falling for it; Bill is one of the
world’s greatest story-tellers. He has fooled people far more
sophisticated than the poor Haitians. Over time, however, the Haitians
wised up. Whatever their initial expectations, many saw that much of the
aid money seems never to have reached its destination; rather, it
disappeared along the way.
Where did it go? It did not escape the attention of the Haitians that
Bill Clinton was the designated UN representative for aid to Haiti.
Following the earthquake, Bill Clinton had with media fanfare
established the Haiti Reconstruction Fund. Meanwhile, his wife Hillary
was the United States secretary of state. She was in charge of U.S. aid
allocated to Haiti. Together the Clintons were the two most powerful
people who controlled the flow of funds to Haiti from around the world.
Haitian deals appeared to be a quid pro quo for filling the coffers
of the Clintons.
The Haitian protesters noticed an interesting pattern involving the
Clintons and the designation of how aid funds were used. They observed
that a number of companies that received contracts in Haiti happened to
be entities that made large donations to the Clinton Foundation.

The
Haitian contracts appeared less tailored to the needs of Haiti than to
the needs of the companies that were performing the services. In sum,
Haitian deals appeared to be a quid pro quo for filling the coffers of
the Clintons.
For example, the Clinton Foundation selected Clayton Homes, a
construction company owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, to
build temporary shelters in Haiti. Buffett is an active member of the
Clinton Global Initiative who has donated generously to the Clintons as
well as the Clinton Foundation. The contract was supposed to be given
through the normal United Nations bidding process, with the deal going
to the lowest bidder who met the project’s standards. UN officials said,
however, that the contract was never competitively bid for.
Clayton offered to build “hurricane-proof trailers” but what they
actually delivered turned out to be a disaster. The trailers were
structurally unsafe, with high levels of formaldehyde and insulation
coming out of the walls. There were problems with mold and fumes. The
stifling heat inside made Haitians sick and many of them abandoned the
trailers because they were ill-constructed and unusable.

The Clintons also funneled $10 million in federal loans to a firm called
InnoVida, headed by Clinton donor Claudio Osorio. Osorio had loaded its
board with Clinton cronies, including longtime Clinton ally General
Wesley Clark; Hillary’s 2008 finance director Jonathan Mantz; and
Democratic fundraiser Chris Korge who has helped raise millions for the
Clintons.
Normally the loan approval process takes months or even years. But in
this case, a government official wrote, “Former President Bill Clinton
is personally in contact with the company to organize its logistical and
support needs. And as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has made
available State Department resources to assist with logistical
arrangements.”
InnoVida had not even provided an independently audited financial report
that is normally a requirement for such applications. This requirement,
however, was waived. On the basis of the Clinton connection, InnoVida’s
application was fast-tracked and approved in two weeks.
The company, however, defaulted on the loan and never built any houses.

An investigation revealed that Osorio had diverted company funds to pay
for his Miami Beach mansion, his Maserati, and his Colorado ski chalet.
He pleaded guilty to wire fraud and money laundering in 2013, and is
currently serving a twelve-year prison term on fraud charges related to
the loan.
Several Clinton cronies showed up with Bill to a 2011 Housing Expo that
cost more than $2 million to stage. Bill Clinton said it would be a
model for the construction of thousands of homes in Haiti. In reality,
no homes have been built. A few dozen model units were constructed but
even they have not been sold. Rather, they are now abandoned and have
been taken over by squatters.
The Schools They Never Built
USAID contracts to remove debris in Port-au-Prince went to a
Washington-based company named CHF International. The company’s CEO
David Weiss, a campaign contributor to Hillary in 2008, was deputy U.S.
trade representative for North American Affairs during the Clinton
administration. The corporate secretary of the board, Lauri Fitz-Pegado,
served in a number of posts in the Clinton administration, including
assistant secretary of commerce.The Clintons claim to have built schools
in Haiti. But the New York Times discovered that when it comes to the
Clintons, “built” is a term with a very loose interpretation.

For
example, the newspaper located a school featured in the Clinton
Foundation annual report as “built through a Clinton Global Initiative
Commitment to Action.” In reality, “The Clinton Foundation’s sole direct
contribution to the school was a grant for an Earth Day celebration and
tree-building activity.”
The Clintons claim to have built schools in Haiti. But the New York
Times discovered that when it comes to the Clintons, ‘built’ is a term
with a very loose interpretation.
USAID contracts also went to consulting firms such as New York–based
Dalberg Global Development Advisors, which received a $1.5 million
contract to identify relocation sites for Haitians. This company is an
active participant and financial supporter of the Clinton Global
Initiative.

A later review by USAID’s inspector general found that
Dalberg did a terrible job, naming uninhabitable mountains with steep
ravines as possible sites for Haitian rebuilding.
Foreign governments and foreign companies got Haitian deals in exchange
for bankrolling the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation lists the
Brazilian construction firm OAS and the InterAmerican Development Bank
(IDB) as donors that have given it between $1 billion and $5 billion.
The IDB receives funding from the State Department, and some of this
funding was diverted to OAS for Haitian road-building contracts. Yet an
IDB auditor, Mariela Antiga, complained that the contracts were padded
with “excessive costs” to build roads “no one needed.” Antiga also
alleged that IDB funds were going to a construction project on private
land owned by former Haitian president Rene Preval — a Clinton buddy —
and several of his cronies. For her efforts to expose corruption, Antiga
was promptly instructed by the IDB to pack her bags and leave Haiti.
In 2011, the Clinton Foundation brokered a deal with Digicel, a
cell-phone-service provider seeking to gain access to the Haitian
market.

The Clintons arranged to have Digicel receive millions in U.S.
taxpayer money to provide mobile phones. The USAID Food for Peace
program, which the State Department administered through Hillary aide
Cheryl Mills, distributed Digicel phones free to Haitians.
Digicel didn’t just make money off the U.S. taxpayer; it also made money
off the Haitians. When Haitians used the phones, either to make calls
or transfer money, they paid Digicel for the service. Haitians using
Digicel’s phones also became automatically enrolled in Digicel’s mobile
program.

By 2012, Digicel had taken over three-quarters of the
cell-phone market in Haiti.
Digicel is owned by Denis O’Brien, a close friend of the Clintons.
O’Brien secured three speaking engagements in his native Ireland that
paid $200,000 apiece. These engagements occurred right at the time that
Digicel was making its deal with the U.S. State Department. O’Brien has
also donated lavishly to the Clinton Foundation, giving between $1
million and $5 million sometime in 2010–2011.

Coincidentally the United States government paid Digicel $45 million to
open a hotel in Port-au-Prince. Now perhaps it could be argued that
Haitians could use a high-priced hotel to attract foreign investors and
provide jobs for locals. Thus far, however, this particular hotel seems
to employ only a few dozen locals, which hardly justifies the sizable
investment that went into building it. Moreover, there are virtually no
foreign investors; the rooms are mostly unoccupied; the ones that are
taken seem mainly for the benefit of Digicel’s visiting teams.
In addition, the Clintons got their cronies to build Caracol Industrial
Park, a 600-acre garment factory that was supposed to make clothes for
export to the United States and create — according to Bill Clinton —
100,000 new jobs in Haiti.

The project was funded by the U.S. government
and cost hundreds of millions in taxpayer money, the largest single
allocation of U.S. relief aid.
Yet Caracol has proven a massive failure. First, the industrial park was
built on farmland and the farmers had to be moved off their property.
Many of them feel they were pushed out and inadequately compensated.
Some of them lost their livelihoods. Second, Caracol was supposed to
include 25,000 homes for Haitian employees; in the end, the Government
Accountability Office reports that only around 6,000 homes were built.
Third, Caracol has created 5,000 jobs, less than 10 percent of the jobs
promised. Fourth, Caracol is exporting very few products and most of the
facility is abandoned. People stand outside every day looking for work,
but there is no work to be had, as Haiti’s unemployment rate hovers
around 40 percent.
The Clintons say Caracol can still be salvaged.

But former Haitian prime
minister Jean Bellerive says, “I believe the momentum to attract people
there in a massive way is past. Today, it has failed.” Still,
Bellerive’s standard of success may not be the same one used by the
Clintons. After all, the companies that built Caracol with U.S. taxpayer
money have done fine — even if poor Haitians have seen few of the
benefits.

Then there is the strange and somehow predictable involvement of Hillary
Clinton’s brother Hugh Rodham. Rodham put in an application for $22
million from the Clinton Foundation to build homes on ten thousand acres
of land that he said a “guy in Haiti” had “donated” to him.
“I deal through the Clinton Foundation,” Rodham told the New York Times.
“I hound my brother-in-law because it’s his fund that we’re going to
get our money from.” Rodham said he expected to net $1 million
personally on the deal.

Unfortunately, his application didn’t go
through.
Rodham had better luck, however, on a second Haitian deal. He
mysteriously found himself on the advisory board of a U.S. mining
company called VCS. This by itself is odd because Rodham’s resume lists
no mining experience; rather, Rodham is a former private detective and
prison guard.

The mining company, however, seems to have recognized Rodham’s value.
They brought him on board in October 2013 to help secure a valuable gold
mining permit in Haiti. Rodham was promised a “finder’s fee” if he
could land the contract. Sure enough, he did. For the first time in 50
years, Haiti awarded two new gold mining permits and one of them went to
the company that had hired Hillary’s brother.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say the Clintons don’t care about Haiti.

Yet it seems clear that Haitian welfare is not their priority.
The deal provoked outrage in the Haitian Senate. “Neither Bill Clinton
nor the brother of Hillary Clinton are individuals who share the
interest of the Haitian people,” said Haitian mining representative
Samuel Nesner. “They are part of the elite class who are operating to
exploit the Haitian people.”
Is this too harsh a verdict? I wouldn’t go so far as to say the Clintons
don’t care about Haiti.

Yet it seems clear that Haitian welfare is not
their priority. Their priority is, well, themselves. The Clintons seem
to believe in Haitian reconstruction and Haitian investment as long as
these projects match their own private economic interests. They have
steered the rebuilding of Haiti in a way that provides maximum benefit
to themselves.
No wonder the Clintons refused to meet with the Haitian protesters.

Each
time the protesters showed up, the Clintons were nowhere to be seen.
They have never directly addressed the Haitians’ claims. Strangely
enough, they have never been required to do so. The progressive media
scarcely covered the Haitian protest. Somehow the idea of Haitian black
people calling out the Clintons as aid money thieves did not appeal to
the grand pooh-bahs at CBS News, the New York Times, and NPR.

For most Democrats, the topic is both touchy and distasteful. It’s one
thing to rob from the rich but quite another to rob from the poorest of
the poor. Some of the Democratic primary support for Bernie Sanders was
undoubtedly due to Democrats’ distaste over the financial shenanigans of
the Clintons. Probably these Democrats considered the Clintons to be
unduly grasping and opportunistic, an embarrassment to the great
traditions of the Democratic party.

ABOUT THIS BLOG

I AM A FEROCIOUS CONSERVATIVE
CONSERVATIVE RIGHT WINGER UNDERGROUND... IN EXILE IN AMERICA !
I AM AN UNRELENTING FEROCIOUS CONSERVATIVE:
Ferocious = (fə-rō'shəs) “Marked by unrelenting intensity; to the extreme”
Conservative = (kən-sûr'və-tĭz'əm) “A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions and distrust of government activism”
My page is a place for Unrelenting Ferocious Activist Conservatives across our country to gather and discuss and plan our next moves. I am tired of sitting around and playing “nice” while the Progressive Liberals have spent the last 50 years attacking and denigrating our values and our beliefs while our side sits around and tries real hard to be accommodating and “Nice”! (Political Correctness!) NO MORE!!
AS AN UNRELENTING FEROCIOUS CONSERVATIVES. I WILL ATTACK BACK!